• From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
• To: "'Richard Salz'" <rsalz@u...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:01:58 -0500

Richard says
-------

Nobody really questioned the belief that "netascii" was required for 
maximum interop.

You want to call that Ignorance, go ahead.  I'd just say "we didn't know."
-----------


No exactly *not* my point.
I am saying it could *NOT* have been ignorance.  I simply cannot accept that
the spec authors were ignorant of the shortcomings of not (or under)
specifying encoding issues.   They just chose to ignore them on purpose.
Probably for good reasons, like it was hard and not useful to them at the
time to hash it out.  Not blaming them to come up with a spec that worked
for the use cases they put it to.  Just saying it was a choice, not
"ignorance". 





----------------------------------------
David A. Lee
dlee@c...
http://www.xmlsh.org

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • RE: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>

• References:
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • RE: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Tei <oscar.vives@g...>
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>